Learning the first שיחה of פרשת נח in ליקוטי שיחות חלק כ\"ה. ס'איז ידוע וואס חז\"ל זאגן בנוגע צו נח, we know what the חז\"ל say concerning נח, and this is basically in the זוהר. So it says concerning נח אז ער האט נישט מתפלל געווען על אנשי דורו, that he didn't דאוון for the people of his generation. And the רבי quotes the לשון of the זוהר: לא בעא רחמין על עלמא. He didn't ask for רחמנות, he didn't דאוון to the אייבערשטער asking that the אייבערשטער should have רחמנות on the people of the world, the people that the אייבערשטער were killed later by the מבול. נישט ווי משה רבינו וואס האט מתפלל געווען אויף די אנשי עגל, not like משה רבינו who דאוונד for those people who made the עגל, and the אייבערשטער wanted to destroy them and משה רבינו דאוונד for them. געפינט מען אין דעם א פלוגתא צווישן רבי יהודה און רבי יצחק. So in the זוהר that the רבי quotes in the הערות, we find an argument between רבי יהודה and רבי יצחק. רבי יהודה זאגט, רבי יהודה says, אז דאס וואס נח האט נישט מתפלל געווען אזוי ווי משה, that this that נח did not דאוון for the people like משה did, is נישט געווען אן ענין של חסרון. It wasn't a חסרון, it wasn't something negative. And the רבי says it's משמע like that from רש\"י also, he says in the הערה. נאר וואל משה לא תלא מילי בזכותיה, נאר בזכות אבות. The reason why משה did דאוון is because he didn't connect it to his own זכות, but the זכות of the אבות. He דאוונד to the אייבערשטער that he should save the יידן in the זכות of the אבות. בעת אז נח האט כמובן נישט געקאנט תולה זיין תפילתו בזכות אבות. But נח, as understood, was not able to connect and refer his תפילה in the זכות of the אבות, because this was before the אבות. Therefore, there's no problem that נח didn't דאוון for his people. מה שאין כן רבי יצחק האלט, but רבי יצחק holds, אז טראץ דעם, האט נח געדארפט מתפלל זיין ומעורר רחמים זיין אויף זיי. That nevertheless, in spite of the fact that he wasn't able to be תולה it in the זכות of the אבות, he nevertheless should have דאוונד for them and מעורר רחמים on them. This is the זוהר. איז דער טאטע מבאר דעם טעם. So the רבי says that his father explains the reason for it in ליקוטי לוי יצחק. And he says the reason why רבי יהודה says that it was no חסרון and רבי יצחק says it was a חסרון, so he says that רבי יהודה מהפך בזכות דנח, ורבי יצחק בהיפך, שמהפך בחובתו, that this that רבי יהודה is looking for the זכות, looking for to find this as a merit on נח, and רבי יצחק the opposite, he's looking as a חוב, as a negative thing on נח. א דאס איז דערפאר, this is because וואס כל אחד מהם מדבר כפי בחינתו ומדרגתו. Each one was speaking according to his own בחינה, his own מדרגה. As the רבי's father does in many places, that when there are different people that say different opinions, he always connects it to the level that they themselves were in. And they taught the תורה and they explained the ענינים according to their level. And this what he explains: רבי יהודה איז בחינת חסד, רבי יהודה is the level of חסד, איז דערפאר איז ער מהפך בזכותו, כפי מדותיו, מדת החסד. So since his מדה was חסד, חסד is kindness, so therefore he's always looking for a זכות, to be kind, like his מדה is מדת החסד. ורבי יצחק הוא בחינת גבורה, רבי יצחק is in the level of גבורה, לכן מהפך בחובתו. Therefore he looks at it in the opposite way, the negative way כפי מדותיו, like his מדה, מדת הגבורה, like the מדה of גבורה. Now why רבי יהודה is the מדה of חסד it doesn't say here, the רבי's father explains it in different places, why רבי יהודה is connected to חסד, brings ראיות from different places. Also interesting, he also quotes in other places that whenever the גמרא says מעשה בחסיד אחד, when the גמרא tells a story about a חסיד and the גמרא uses the word חסיד, so the גמרא says it's always רבי יהודה. So we see also a connection between רבי יהודה and חסיד which comes from the word of חסד. Also we find in the גמרא בבא קמא, רבי יהודה was the one that said מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא, whoever wants to be a חסיד should learn פרקי אבות, etc., etc. So we see from here that רבי יהודה is connected to חסד, and רבי יצחק is connected to גבורה, that's obvious. We always know: אברהם, יצחק, יעקב. אברהם is חסד, יצחק is גבורה. So always יצחק represents גבורה. So the רבי's father explains here that רבי יהודה, whose מדרגה is חסד, so he does it in the form of חסד. So he explains the fact that נח didn't דאוון for his people is not a חסרון. פארקערט, he finds that he couldn't help it, it's not his fault. And רבי יצחק, whose level is גבורה, explains it in the form of חוב, that it was a חסרון that he didn't דאוון for them. And then the רבי asks, מען דארף אבער האבן א ביאור, we have to have an explanation. דער אנזאג פון תורה, והווי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות, איז: this commandment of the תורה, that you always have to judge people favorably, is כמובן בפשטות, as it's self-understand, א כלל פאר יעדן ייד, that's a rule for every ייד. אפילו פאר איינעם וואס מידותיו איז מידת הגבורה, even if a person whose מדה is גבורה, still has this חיוב of judg- judging everybody favorably. איז ווי קומט עס וואס רבי יצחק האט מהפך געווען בחובתו של נח? So why is it that רבי יצחק looked for a חוב for נח as if he's trying to judge him unfavorably, און האט אים נישט אנגעגעבן לכף זכות, and he didn't judge him favorably כצווי המשנה like the משנה says? I want to explain what this means. Now, we do find in the תורה a lot of times that the תורה says certain things which is negative about certain things. It means we can never say anything negative? If something is clearly negative, it's negative. But whenever we have a choice of the two ways, or to look at it negatively or look at it favorably, so obviously we have to judge everybody favorably. So the question here is, since there's a choice here to how to דרשן this, whether what he didn't דאווען for the people is a negative thing or not, why would even the person whose מדות is מדת הגבורה, but why would he not judge this favorably like the משנה says, you have to judge everybody favorably? When there's a choice, here there is a choice, because there are two ways to learn. So that's the שאלה of the רבי. Then the רבי continues, בדוגמא צו די צוויי דעות הנ\"ל פון רבי יהודה און רבי יצחק, similar to these two opinions of רבי יהודה and רבי יצחק, געפינט מען אייך א פלוגתא, we find also an argument and this is in גמרא, and רש\"י also brings it in חומש, we find an argument that from פסוק, בתחילת פרשתנו, on the פסוק in the beginning of פרשת נח, on the פסוק נח איש צדיק, פסוק says נח was a צדיק תמים, etc., and then the פסוק says בדורותיו, he was a צדיק in his generation. So רש\"י says it like this, יש מרבותינו דורשים אותו לשבח, some of the חכמים דרשן this for praise. What's the praise? When the תורה mentioned that he was a צדיק in his generations, it tells you that even in his generation, people were bad, he was a צדיק. כל שכן שאילו היה בדור צדיקים, היה צדיק יותר. Certainly had he been in a דור צדיקים, a generation of צדיקים, he would be a bigger צדיק. ויש דורשים אותו לגנאי, some דרשן it for embarrassment, for לגנאי, negatively, that לפי דורו היה צדיק, when the פסוק says he was a צדיק in his generation, it means yes, according to his generation, he was a צדיק, ואילו היה בדורו של אברהם, had he been in the generation of אברהם, לא היה נחשב לכלום, he wouldn't be considered anything. That's what רש\"י brings and the גמרא says this. Two opinions how we דרשן the פסוק בדורותיו. וכהוכחם דעם איז נישט מובן על דרך די שאלה הנ\"ל, so here also it's not understood similar to the question we asked before. כי בעלד מען האט א ברירה, since we have a choice, we can דרשן it לשבח or we can דרשן it לגנאי, you could דרשן it in a positive way, in a praise way, and you could דרשן it לגנאי in a negative way, like we said before, פאר וואס זאל מען זאגן אז כוונת התורה איז ארויסברענגען גנותו של נח? Why would we think to say, why would we want to say, that the reason the תורה writes this extra word בדורותיו, in his generation, is to show the גנות of נח? Why would the תורה want to show the גנות of נח? If you have a choice to say it's לשבח, why would we choose to טייטש it that it means לגנאי? נאך מער, the question is more. ס'איז א כלל, there is a rule that the גמרא says, אז אפילו בגנות בהמה טמאה לא דיבר הכתוב, that even in the embarrassment of a non-kosher animal, the תורה does not say. The תורה does many times not use the word בהמה טמאה, a טמאה'דיקע בהמה, but the תורה uses the word לא טהורה, not טהור. The תורה doesn't want to say anything negative even about an animal. The תורה נוצט נישט קיין לשון מגונה אפילו בנוגע א בהמה. The תורה doesn't use a negative לשון, a not such nice לשון, even concerning a בהמה, ועל אחת כמה וכמה אז די תורה וועט נישט רעדן בגנותו של נח. So certainly the תורה would not talk anything negative about נח. טאָ ווי קען זיין א דעה, so how is it possible to be an opinion, אז די תורה איז מוסיף דעם ווארט בדורותיו, that the תורה adds this extra word בדורותיו, בלויז ארויסצוברענגען אן ענין של גנאי, only in order to tell us something of גנאי בשייכות צו נח, in connection to נח? In other words, this is an extra word. The whole דרשה, these two opinions דרשן it because the word בדורותיו is extra. It could have said נח איש צדיק תמים היה, צדיק היה, whatever the לשון will be. Why does the תורה have to add בדורותיו? So it's coming to tell us, and here we have a choice. Should it tell, does it mean to tell us that even in his generation he was a צדיק, to show how great נח was? Or to שארפער is only compared to his generation he was a צדיק. So the תורה adds in the extra word. Why would we think that the תורה would add an extra word to tell us a גנאי of נח? Which basically is a קשיא on the גמרא. It's a קשיא on the opinion, but even if we'll say that this opinion who holds that the פסוק means לגנאי, there's still a קשיא then on the גמרא. Why would the גמרא go out of its way to tell us something a גנאי of נח? Even if this opinion has a ראיה that the תורה meant it לגנאי, so he has to say it meant לגנאי, but so the קשיא is on the גמרא, why would the גמרא tell us something, add an extra word to tell us an embarrassment of נח? So the רבי says, ויש לומר בזה, we could answer this, ובזה נבין וואס מ'האט אלעמאל מבאר געווען, first bringing in something that the רבי explained before, and it's in לקוטי שיחות חלק ה' חלק י', as the רבי brings in the הערות. So the רבי explained, אז דער כלל אז תורה נוצט נישט קיין לשון מגונה, this this rule that the תורה does not use a not nice לשון, and the תורה tries to go out of its way to use לשון נקיה, a clean לשון, באציט זיך צו סיפורי התורה. It's only when the תורה tells us stories. מה שאין כן ווען די תורה זאגט א הלכה ודין, when the תורה tells us הלכה, א דין, דארט נוצט די תורה א לשון ברור. There the תורה uses a clear לשון. אפילו ווען צוליב דעם דארף מען נוצן א לשון בלתי נקיה, even if because of that we have to use a לשון which is not so clean. But if it's נוגע להלכה, the תורה will say the not clean expression. ווייל א הלכה דארף געזאגט ווערן קלאר, a הלכה has to be said clear, and the רבי stresses the word clear, as we see many times the רבי has italics, italics by the רבי is when he stresses a word, so it has to be clear, א הוראה ברורה, a clear lesson, כדי צו פארמיידן א מקום לטעות, in order to avoid a any possibility of a mistake, ביי אויספירן די הלכה למעשה בפועל. When you're gonna do this הלכה בפועל למעשה, if it's not gonna be written outright clear, you might make a mistake. So here we disregard the fact that you have to use a nice לשון, the תורה uses any לשון as long as it's clear. על דרך זה אין דעם ענין, so the רבי says you could say the same thing in this ענין. וואס די תורה איז מוסיף דעם ווארט בדורותיו, מיינט לפי איין פירוש לגנאי. When we say the תורה adds the word בדורותיו, and according to one opinion, it means לגנאי, it's for this reason what we just said before, that things have to be clear when it's נוגע להלכה. And he explains it like this. ווען תורה וואלט נישט ארויסגעבראכט דעם גנאי, if the תורה would not bring this embarrassment or this גנאי, this negative thing concerning נח, וואלט געווען אן ארט צו האבן א טעות בנוגע להלכה, בנוגע להנהגה בפועל. This would make a place, a possibility for somebody to make a mistake. And as we said before, when it's something that could bring a mistake in your behavior, has to be clear. That means like this. מען געפינט ענינים בהנהגות נח וואס ווייזן אז ביי אים איז נישט געווען צדקות בשלימות. We look in חומש and we find in the in the מפרשים, we find the גמרא, that certain things נח did not do 100% correctly. למשל, in the הערות, he brings different examples. One example is on the first פסוק when it says את האלקים התהלך נח, that נח went with השם, so רש״י says it means he needed השם to help him. That means it wasn't so great. Another place it says that נח went into the תיבה because of the waters of the מבול. So רש״י says, נח מקטני אמנה היה, he was also from the small believers. He didn't really 100% believe the מבול will come, so till he didn't see the water coming, he didn't go into the תיבה. So we see certain things which are not so great בנוגע לנח. So he wasn't a צדיק בשלימות. איז אויב תורה וואלט מתאר געווען נח אלס צדיק תמים, if the תורה would just say נח was a צדיק תמים, a complete צדיק, און נישט באווארנט דערביי אז דאס איז בדורותיו, בלויז בערך צו זיין דור, and if he wouldn't the me- at the point mention that it was only according to his the level of his generation he was a צדיק, only בערך to his generation, if the תורה wouldn't mention that and would leave it just saying that he was a צדיק, וואלט מען געקאנט מיינען, we would think, אז אזא הנהגה איז הנהגת צדיק תמים, that whatever נח did is a behavior that a צדיק does. And that would be wrong, because certain things that נח did which we should not do. דעריבער מוז דא זיין מודגש דער היפך השבח פון נח. Therefore here you must bring out the opposite of the praise of נח, כדי מ'זאל דערפון אפלערנען א קלארע הוראה ווי אזוי דארף מען זיך פירן, so we should learn out exactly how we're supposed to behave. The question was, how could the תורה write something negative according to this opinion? Why would the תורה write something negative about נח? The answer is because the תורה wants us to know that what he did is not 100%, so we will learn out. Just like we say the כלל, that when it comes to הלכה we could write something in a לשון that's negative, not such a good לשון, here also the תורה בדווקא wants to write that it was, he was only a צדיק בדורותיו, according to his generation, בערך to his generation, to teach us that we should not follow what he everything he did, because certain things he did was not good. על פי זה קען מען זאגן נאך מער. So now the רבי, the רבי continues, he says we could go even a step further. אז דער מכוון פון יש דורשין אותו לגנאי, that the meaning of the words that there are some who דרשן this for the גנאי, איז נישט צו דערציילן אז ביי נח איז געווען א חסרון בפועל, is not to tell us that נח had some חסרון, had something negative, נאר דורשין אותו לגנאי. דורשין is how we דרשן it. עס איז א דרשה ולימוד לגנאי פאר א צווייטן. A second person, other people who look at what he did, they should look at it as a גנאי. Why? צו פארהיטן אים פון א חסרון וטעות ביים לערנען וועגן נח'ן, that he should avoid, that people shouldn't make a mistake when we learn what happened by נח, and we should think we could do it. In other words, when the תורה, according to this what the רבי is adding here is something is this. Till now, till this new last paragraph that we learned, the רבי just answered that the reason that we that the תורה would according to this opinion say that some גנאי on נח, פשוט because it's נוגע למעשה, it's נוגע that we shouldn't learn from נח. But טאקע the תורה so far is telling us something negative about נח. So when the גמרא says, or רש״י says, יש דורשין לגנאי, they דרשנען לגנאי means yes, this was a גנאי for נח. איי, the קשיא is, why would the תורה tell us a גנאי on נח? So other people shouldn't learn. So it's נוגע למעשה, so it doesn't matter to tell a גנאי. What the רבי is adding here is that the תורה never meant it's a גנאי on נח. The words יש דורשין לגנאי means that the one that דרשנ'ט לגנאי learns it that there is a גנאי that we should learn. For נח, it wasn't a גנאי, as the רבי will explain in a moment. It wasn't a גנאי for him, but since we could learn out from it to act the way he did, and in our situation we shouldn't, so we have to look at it as a גנאי. So they דרשנען לגנאי, the דרשה, the people who דרשנען, it's a גנאי. And here the רבי explains why for him itself it's not a גנאי, even according to the opinion that says that to דרשנען לגנאי, it wasn't a גנאי, it's only a גנאי for others. This is what the רבי says: ווארום יש לומר, because we could say, that דאס וואס יש דורשין לשבח ויש דורשין לגנאי, this that there are two opinions, some say it's a לשבח, that even in his generation he was great, certainly be in other generations, and the other one who says it's לגנאי, is ניט קיין פלוגתא בנוגע דער דרגת הצדקות פון נח. It's not an argument in the level of צדקות of נח. See, simple פשט we learn a מחלוקת is one says נח was a big צדיק, one says he was not a big צדיק, he was not so great. The רבי says, no, that's not the מחלוקת. מר אמר חדא ומר אמר חדא ולא פליגי. Each one is speaking about something else. It's a לשון הגמרא. One says one thing, one says something, but they're not arguing. And what is it that they're not arguing about? So the רבי says, און לא פליגי במציאות, and they're not arguing. This word און, which means and, is a little bit strange here. Doesn't mean to add something. This is the explanation. Really, without the word און would also be good. It's מר אמר חדא ומר אמר חדא ולא פליגי, they're not arguing, and then there's a colon there, and now he explains: לא פליגי etc., etc. They're not arguing in this, they're not arguing in this, it's just a different way of looking at it. But here what the word און means, and this is what the פשט is. I guess that's the word און. Anyway, this is what the רבי says: that they're not arguing in the מציאות of what the level of נח was. לא פליגי במציאות, אז די צדקות פון נח אין בדורו של אברהם אינו נחשב לכלום. They're not arguing whether if נח would have been in the generation of אברהם if he'd be anything great. In other words, everyone agrees to this. Both opinions agree that he wasn't in a great level like by אברהם. He wasn't. אבער לאידך האלטן אלע, also everyone holds, on the other hand, אז ניט נח איז געווען שולדיק וואס ער איז נישט געווען אזא גרויסער צדיק ווי אברהם, that the fact that he wasn't such a big צדיק like אברהם is not his fault, נאר דאס איז געווען צוליב דעם מצב פון דער גרויסער חסרון פון זיין דור, it was only because his generation was so low. און נאך, אילו היה בדור צדיקים היה צדיק יותר. Had he been in a level of in the generation of צדיקים he would be greater. In other words, what the רבי is saying, every opinion holds that the level of נח was not as great as אברהם. Every opinion holds that it wasn't his fault. So what is the argument? If they both hold that had he been in the generation of אברהם he wouldn't be considered a צדיק, and everyone also agrees that it's not his fault, the חילוק is, the difference is, וואס די תורה איז, וואס איז די תורה אויסן מיט די ווארט בדורותיו? What is the תורה trying to stress here? The fact is a fact, according to everybody. The question: what are they trying to stress? And בכלל, this has a big מעלה, the רבי didn't explain it yet, has a big מעלה trying to say that both opinions really hold the same thing, because there is a rule and the רבי brings it in הערה 18, there's a כלל even in learning הלכה that wherever we're able to minimize in a מחלוקת and say they're really arguing on a very, very small point, but not a major מחלוקת, we always try to do it. Certainly, and this is not הלכה, but also it's good to see that we're able to say there is no מחלוקת. So we said there is no מחלוקת here. Everyone agrees he wasn't as a big צדיק as אברהם, and everyone agrees that it's not his fault. The difference is, what is the תורה trying to stress when the תורה says בדורותיו? איין מאן דאמר זאגט, one מאן דאמר says, דעם שבח, דעם שבח אז די תורה קומט משבח זיין נח. The תורה, by writing בדורותיו, is trying to tell us the praise of נח. That's all. און דער צווייטער מאן דאמר זאגט אז דער מיל, דערמיט וויל די תורה באווארענען אז עס זאל ניט ארויסקומען קיין תקלה אין דער עבודה פון א ייד וואס לערנט וועגן נח. The other one says that the תורה wants to make sure that no one else will make such a mistake, it shouldn't be a stumbling block. In other words, the fact that נח did live lived in a bad generation, and nevertheless he was a צדיק, at whatever level he was, that itself is a praise for נח. Shows how great נח was. Being in such a generation and still being the way he was, it's great praise. On the other hand, even though it wasn't his fault, וממילא, as far as he's concerned, it's something great, but we can learn and think that we have to be the same way. So we have to know that for us, who don't live in that generation, we shouldn't be like that. But the question is: what is the תורה trying Which of the two is the תורה trying to tell us? So one מאן דאמר says that תורה is trying to tell us the greatness of נח. That נח in his generation, he was the way he was, which is something special. And the other מאן דאמר says, true, that it was only because of his generation, he wasn't so great, but the reason the תורה is mentioning it is to bring out that we should not learn from him. But they're not arguing in the level of נח. און דאס מיינט יש דורשין לגנאי. This is what it means when it says they דרשן לגנאי. בשייכות צו נח גופא איז דאס נישט קיין ענין פון גנאי און חסרון. Concerning נח, it's not a גנאי. תורה is not saying that there's a גנאי and there's something wrong with נח. Why not? Because זייענדיק אין אזא דור, because being in such a generation, איז נישט געווען שייך אז ער זאל זיין די דרגא פון צדקות ווי אברהם. It was not possible that he should be like אברהם. His צדקות should be like אברהם. Therefore, the fact that we say he was a צדיק only according to his generation is no גנאי, it's not negative at all to נח. He did his best. נאר תורה מוז ארויסברענגען אז די דרגא פון צדקות איז נישט די אמת'ע שלמות. But the תורה still has to tell us that we should know, even though it's not his fault, and he did his best, but we should know that that's not the highest מדרגה. ס'איז א דרגא פון גנאי בערך צו אברהם. Comparing to אברהם, it's called a גנאי. לא היה נחשב לכלום. Like he says, concerning comparing to compared to אברהם, he would be nothing. Why does the תורה want to tell us that? כדי אז די הוראה פון סיפור נח זאל זיין קלאר. So the lesson that we take from נח should be clear that we cannot follow everything that נח did. In other words, it seems from here that the רבי, when he's טייטשינג the word גנאי, normally גנאי means an embarrassment. We're saying it's an embarrassment for נח when יש דורשין לגנאי. Simple פשט, without the שיחה, people there are certain people who דרשן לגנאי means that they דרשן this embarrasses נח. The רבי טייטשט the word embarrass- this is not embarrassment. גנאי means חסרון, not such a good thing. So some say the תורה is trying to stress the fact that he's not that that it's not such a great level in order to teach us that we shouldn't follow. And the other one says, no, that's not what the תורה is trying to stress. The תורה is trying to stress that even though he was in a such a such a generation, he was still a great person to- Because the fact is, they both agree. It's a שבח for נח. It's the fact that he was a צדיק the way he was, not such a great צדיק, the way is is a praise for נח, and on the other hand, it could come out a חסרון for other people. So one מאן דאמר says the תורה stresses the מעלה of נח, the other one says the תורה stresses the חסרון. אין דעם זעלבן אופן קען מען מסביר זיין די צוויי דעות פון רבי יהודה און רבי יצחק אין דעם וואס נח האט נישט מתפלל געווען על דורו. The same way we would explain the two opinions between רבי יהודה and רבי יצחק concerning the fact that נח did not דאוונען for his people, which we said one opinion, repeating again from the beginning, that one opinion says that it's not his fault, there's nothing wrong with it, because משה רבינו דאוונט because he was תולה in the זכות of the אבות. נח couldn't, so there's no problem. He didn't do anything wrong by not דאוונענג. And the other opinion says, no, it's still a חסרון, he should have דאוונט. ס'איז מר אמר חדא ומר אמר חדא ולא פליגי. They're both saying looking at from one is saying one thing, one is saying the other. They're not arguing in the facts. They're just arguing how to look at it. אויך רבי יצחק איז מודה, even רבי יצחק, who says that really he should have דאוונט, agrees, admits, אז דאס וואס נח האט נישט מתפלל געווען על אנשי דורו, the fact that נח didn't דאוונען for the people of his generation, איז ווייל ער האט אין יענע מעמד נישט געקענט מתפלל זיין אזוי. In that situation, he couldn't דאוונען for them. היות ס'איז לא היה לו במה במאן דיתלה בזכותו, כמשה. He didn't have anybody to connect the זכות, so no prob- everyone agrees that that it's no חסרון that he didn't דאוונען for them. עס איז נישט קיין חסרון אין נח. It's no חסרון in נח. So what is רבי יצחק saying that he still should have דאוונט? רבי יצחק קומט נאר באווארענען, and רבי יצחק comes to tell us, אז עס זאל נישט ארויסקומען א תקלה חס ושלום אין א שפעטערדיקן דור. Shouldn't come out any stumbling block in a later generation. מיינענדיק, people might think, אז ס'איז נישט קיין חסרון אז מ'איז נישט מתפלל אויף אנשי הדור. If you see נח didn't דאוונען, so people will think it's okay if you don't דאוונען for other people of your generation. דעריבער זאגט רבי יצחק, so רבי יצחק says, אז מען דארף אז מען מוז דרשנען, that we have to דרשן, and the רבי here uses the same expression as before יש דורשין, דרשנען means ארויסברענגען, you have to דרשן, what do you take out from it, אז די זאך פאר זיך איז אן ענין של גנאי. This that he didn't דאוונען is a problem. It's a גנאי. Not that it's a problem on him. כאטש אז ביי נח גופא האט עס נישט געקענט זיין באופן אנדערש. נח couldn't do any other way, as we said. But you should know this ענין is a גנאי, is is a problem, ווייל מען דארף זיך משתדל זיין בכל האופנים האפשריים צו מתפלל זיין און בעטן רחמים פאר א צווייטן ייד. You always have to דאוונען and ask for רחמים for a second ייד. So we shouldn't learn from נח. So the ענין that happened is a גנאי, even though it's not a גנאי on him. און דערפאר איז דאס וואס רבי יצחק נישט קיין סתירה צום כלל פון הוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות. So what רבי יצחק said is not a contradiction that you have to judge always everybody favorably. ווייל אויך לויט רבי יצחקן, he says, ביי נח איז נישט געווען קיין חיוב חס ושלום. Even according to רבי יצחק, what he did, there was not a negative thing, not a חיוב because he didn't דאוונען, because he couldn't. נאר ער באווארנט ווי די זאך איז אן ענין של חיוב ביי אנדערע. He's saying, though, that you should know, when we look at it, this ענין that he did is for us a חיוב, so when we דרשן it to us, we should know that's not how we're supposed to behave. ואדרבה, he says, even contrary, אויב מען וועט ניט באווארענען אז אזא הנהגה אין אלגעמיין פון ניט בעטן רחמים על אנשי דורו איז בלתי ראוי. If we would not mention that what he did, not דאווענען for the people, is a negative thing in itself, if we wouldn't mention that, קען דאס גופא האבן אין זיך אן ענין של חוב על נח, and that would have been something negative for נח. So he's not speaking negative, פארקערט, he's speaking good about נח. Had he not mentioned it, it would be something negative about נח. אזא הנהגה זאל קענען גורם זיין א תקלה ביי צווייטע יידן. What would come out if he wouldn't say, \"Don't follow what נח did, because it's not good for us\"? If he wouldn't say that, and we would think what נח did is good, and we would follow it, then that'll be negative for נח. Means נח caused another ייד to do something wrong. So he says, פארקערט, because I'm looking for a זכות for נח, that's why I'm saying that what he didn't דאווען is a חסרון. We should know for us it's a חסרון. און דעריבער איז אויך דאס גופא בזכותו של נח. So it comes out that what he says is a זכות for נח. ער אליין וויל מען זאל מדגיש זיין אז מען דארף יא מתפלל זיין על אנשי דורו. If you'd ask נח himself, \"What do you think? Should we stress the fact that you have to דאווען, not like you did?\", he would say, \"Sure, do that.\" ביז צו זאגן אז דאס איז אן אופן כאילו עס איז א חסרון אין נח גופא, that if we wouldn't show how it's a חסרון, then it would come out that it'll it's a חסרון in נח. כפשטות לשון רב יצחק, like רב יצחק said, ואם כל דא הוה ליה לנח למיבעי רחמי. He says it's even though he didn't have a זכות, he should have געדאווענט. אלא מאי? Why does he say? לכאורה, we just said before that he himself didn't have a חסרון, but if he wouldn't bring out from here that there is a חסרון for us to do that and there is something negative in the עצם ענין, it would be showing that by him it's a חסרון. That's a חסרון for him. So that's why he mentioned it כדי צו פארזיכערן אז עס זאל ניט ארויסקומען קיין חסרון ביי א צווייטן. So you have to say for sure, to make sure, that this is not going to be any חסרון by a second ייד. That's why he did it. That's why רב יצחק did this. And now the רבי adds another נקודה. און דורך דעם וואס מען באווארנט אז הנהגת נח איז אן ענין של חוב, ניט די אמתע שלימות, by saying that what נח did is not completely good, not that he did something wrong, but for us it wouldn't be good. ובמילא פירט מען זיך אין אנדערע דורות אין אן אופן אז מען יא מתפלל על אנשי דור. And ממילא, by saying that, people in other generations will דאווען, איז דאס גופא מתקן דאס וואס נח האט דעמאלט ניט געטאן. This will fix what נח didn't do. Till now I didn't say it. Till now I just said that נח wants that we should know that it's a חסרון, even though he couldn't help it, but it's a חסרון. We shouldn't follow what he did. Now he's saying, not only that, because of showing that this is a חסרון, this is good for נח not only because no negative thing will come out and no one will follow him, besides that, by us not following him, knowing what he did is a חסרון, is a תיקון for what he did. אז אף על פי בדורו האט ער דאס ניט געקאנט דורכפירן, meaning that even though his generation in his generation he couldn't do it, כיוון דאבער אז דורך אים, but because through him, דאס הייסט דורך ארויסברענגען אז אזא הנהגה איז ניט קיין מעלה, by showing concerning him that what he did is not a מעלה, it's a it's a חסרון, האט מען די הוראה לדורות אז מען דארף יא מתפלל זיין על אנשי דור. ממילא, we have a lesson for all generations that you do have to דאווען, and that's what people will do, ברענגט עס צו די שלימות אין דעם ענין אויך ביי נח גופא. So it brings שלימות to נח. So we're fixing what נח did, that even though he didn't דאווען, but this caused that every generation people should דאווען for him. און דאס איז אויך די הוראה למעשה בימינו אלה. This is the lesson for our generation. Just want to bring out one of the things that's before in the הערה 23, it's an interesting thing, so I'll mention what the רבי says in the הערה. The רבי said that even נח, no one wants to be to brought some גנאי in the person, but here נח would want this גנאי, because it's good for נח, because נח wants no one should follow him. So the רבי brings an example that the רבי explained it's printed in לקוטי שיחות חלק כ״ד, that at the end of פרשת ברכה, when it speaks about משה רבינו'ס passing, so it says ויבכו אותו בני ישראל, the יידן cried for him. So רש״י says, by אהרן when he passed away it says כל בני ישראל, because by אהרן more everyone cried for him, because he brought שלום between people, so everybody cried for him. So the רבי has a שאלה, we're talking about the passing of משה, the הסתלקות of משה, and the תורה brings out all the מעלות of משה. When we talk about משה רבינו, the מעלות of משה, why would רש״י bring here a חסרון in משה, the fact that that he was not like אהרן, אהרן was greater, אהרן everyone cried for? There's some reason that by the when we talk about the מעלות of משה, we're mentioning the חסרון. So the רבי answers, it's a מעלה in משה. משה wants that we should all realize that what he did not do by going from person to person and making שלום, we shouldn't follow. משה in his מדרגה couldn't do that, for whatever reason he couldn't do it. But if we leave it like that, people would think, \"Oh, we want to follow משה רבינו.\" That's why it's even משה רבינו would want that we should learn out not to do like him, and that's a מעלה in משה, that's a that's something that will help משה. That's why it's written by the הסתלקות of משה. The same thing here, נח himself wants we should bring out the גנאי. And then the רבי said that's also מתקן. And דאס is אייגנטלעך די הוראה למעשה בימינו. This is a lesson in our generations. ס'פאסירט א מאל, it happens sometimes אז איינער טוט כפי יכולתו, איז משפיע על סביבתו, על אנשי דורו, somebody does as much as he can to be משפיע on his surroundings and on people of his generation. אבער מצד סיבות שאינם תלויים בו לכאורה, certain times, certain reasons which don't, it's not because of him, איז ער אין דעם נישט מצליח, is not מצליח. קען ער ביי זיך מאכן א חשבון, he can make a חשבון, אני את נפשי הצלתי. I saved myself. In other words, I did everything I'm supposed to do. נישט נאר בנוגע צו זיין אייגענע עבודה מיט זיך, not only concerning myself, I davened, I learned, I did everything I need to do, נאר אויך בנוגע דער עבודה מיט א צווייטן האט ער געטאן בשלימות, even in working with others, he did it completely. אלא ער האט נישט דורכגעטאן, he didn't accomplish. אז דאס איז נישט קיין חיסרון, למה חיסרון? I did everything I can. לערנט רבי יצחק א הוראה, so רבי יצחק teaches us, אז עס קען טאקע זיין אז ער האט באמת געטאן וויפיל ער האט געקענט, could be טאקע he did everything he could. ס'איז נישט נאר א דמיון, not only it's in the imagination, נאר על פי שולחן ערוך, תורת אמת, האט ער געטאן בשלימות, according to the תורה, שולחן ערוך, he did everything completely. אבער אף על פי כן, דארף מען וויסן אז דערביי טאר מען נישט בלייבן. You have to know you can't stop there. מען טאר נישט זיין צופרידן פון דער מצב, מען מוז האלטן אין איין מכריז זיין, you can't be happy of the מצב, you always have to announce, and he uses the לשון of saying, אם כל דא, הוה ליה למיבעי רחמי עליה. By נח does רבי יצחק says, with all the reasons he didn't, he should have davened. You always have to remember that you could have done more. דער נישט בעטן רחמים על הדור is a מצב שלא כדאי. You have to remember that that's not such a good thing. You did your best, but you have to a matter that it's no thing. There's a story that once there was, you say, השתדלות, that there was a אסיפת הרבנים trying to do things with the government, and the רבי הרש\"ב was very strong on a certain thing and he didn't succeed. And רב חיים בריסקער came into him later, and he saw the רבי הרש\"ב crying. So, he asked him, ליובאוויטשער רבי, וואס וויינט איר? מיר האבן דאך געטאן אלץ וואס מען קען. Why are you crying? We did everything we could. So, he said, אבער מיר האבן נישט דורכגעטאן, but we didn't accomplish. So, he didn't stop there, he felt that way. The רבי once told a story with the חפץ חיים, that the חפץ חיים once sent a delegation to be משתדל for certain things for אידן, and they came back and they told him they didn't succeed. So, nobody, he asked them, האט איר געחלשט? Did you faint? If it really bothered, you should have fainted, you should have known. And maybe if they would faint, then the government would would maybe change their mind. Because you can't be enough that the fact that I did everything. You have to know the כוונה is that you have to אויפטאן, you have to finish off and be מצליח. און דאס גופא איז גורם אז עס וועט זיין א מצב פון זכות, this itself causes that it becomes a זכות, אז דער אייבערשטער מבטל די סיבות פון דער מצב בלתי רצוי, that because you feel that way and you do that way, the אייבערשטער will טאקע take away all the reasons which seem to be the reason why it causes the situation not to be so good, און גיט די אידן א געלעגנהייט צו בעטן רחמים על אנשי דורו, and the אייבערשטער gives the possibility that we should be able to daven for the others by his תפילות אז זיי זאלן תשובה טאן, to cause these to do תשובה. ובפרט בזמננו, די עקבתא דמשיחא, certainly our time which we live in the heels of משיח, close to משיח, וואו דער רמב\"ם פסקנט בספרו, בהלכה, the רמב\"ם פסקנס when it's a פסק דין that has to happen, in a ספר of הלכות, אז הבטיחה תורה שסוף ישראל לעשות תשובה בסוף גלותן, the אייבערשטער promised, the תורה promised that at the end the אידן will do תשובה at the end of the גלות, ומייד הן נגאלין, they go out to the גאולה. And so ממילא, the נקודה of the שיחה, as we all see, just to just in short, the question was why in two cases do we find that if you're able to דרשן לשבח, דרשן to good, why would you דרשן לגנאי? And they're both בנוגע נח. One is בנוגע why he didn't daven for his דור, and the other one is that we're saying that only in his generation he was a צדיק, not in others. So, the רבי explains that it's not that we're דרשנ'ינג לגנאי as a גנאי for him, פארקערט, we're דרשנ'ינג לגנאי so everyone should know that we have to do better. And that's not a גנאי on him in both cases because he did his best, so on him it's not a גנאי. אדרבה, it's a מעלה, it's a שבח that he in such a generation he was able to do what he did. But one opinion says that the תורה is interested in telling us his מעלה, that's one thing. And the other one says, yeah, but we have to go ahead, we have to נח himself is מסכים and wants we should talk how what he did was not בעצם a good thing, even though in his situation it was no problem, כדי we should learn out from here how not to do and behave differently. And that's a כלל, that even though normally the תורה doesn't talk negative about somebody, even a בהמה, certainly about נח, but here it's not negative, it's positive to נח is happy that the the תורה talks in a way that it causes us to be better. And when we do it, because we stress how by נח it wasn't the the real good thing, that is a תיקון for what נח did.